Tweet
Lamar Smith is pushing for swift passage of his E-Verify mandate bill. While the bill would likely face a tough battle in the Senate, many wonder whether the President would sign or veto it. The White House has been a strong advocate for E-Verify, but it also knows that enforcement-only bills are hugely unpopular in immigrant communities.
So recent comments by DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano are telling:
Although the Obama administration favors the expanded use of the electronic E-Verify system to confirm the legal status of prospective employees, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said today that any expansion of E-Verify must be part of a larger immigration reform plan.
'If you just do E-Verify, you're not doing enough,' she told a breakfast meeting with reporters.
Napolitano said that E-Verify expansion should be part of a package that also includes the DREAM Act, which allows some children of Napolitano said that E-Verify expansion should be part of a package that also includes the DREAM Act, which allows illegal immigrants a pathway to U.S. citizenship, along with expanded H1B visas for high-tech workers and H2A visas.
Of course, this isn't really comprehensive immigration reform, but that's okay in my opinion. Interestingly, Napolitano is quoted saying E-Verify "can and should be part of (comprehensive) immigration reform." Note that the Houston Chronicle reporter has put "comprehensive" in parenthesis assuming that Napolitano meant comprehensive reform. But I think she probably meant exactly what she said - just reform. Efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration bill have gone nowhere now for seven years and the politics have only gooten worse. But piecemeal immigration reform is an easier lift and it could be that we get some important reforms like the DREAM Act, perhaps AgJobs and skilled worker reforms in exchange for an E-Verify mandate. I'd take that deal if it were on the table, though I know many in the pro-immigrant community will reject anything less than perfect. But we all know that the perfect solution is the enemy of the good one.
My way relies less on arrest. ACLU, MALDEF, et al. raise legitimate concerns over potential abuse of arrest authority. The problem is that the anti-enforcement movement also opposes the alternatives to arrest and support measures which incentivize violation of immigration law.
There are a ton of things which make illegal presence either more attractive or less attractive. At the federal level, an example currently in the news is a legal ambiguity/loophole and the quadrupling of unlawfully present alien claims under the Additional Child Tax Credit:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxes/179233-report-unauthorized-workers-get-billions-from-tax-credit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/undocumented-workers-collect-42billion-from-irs-in-tax-credits-audit-finds/2011/09/02/gIQAuuBgxJ_story.html
At the state level, Califoria is passing lots of laws with the sole purpose of supporting illegal presence. At the local level, there are police mandates and sanctuary policies.
Felons, too, among inmates who [Cook] county won't hold for immigration
BY LISA DONOVAN Cook County Reporter ldonovan@suntimes.com September 8, 2011 5:58PM
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/7546586-418/felons-too-among-inmates-who-county-wont-hold-for-immigration.html
"Napolitano said that E-Verify expansion should be part of a package that also includes the DREAM Act...expanded H1B visas for high-tech workers and H2A visas."
The good old (and never explained) stand alone amnesty OK, stand alone enforcement must have amnesty with it contradiction. Usually it's stand alone E-Verify is hopelessly flawed (58% failure rate) but we're all for CIR of which E-Verify is a core component.
You mean that these folks actually pay taxes Jack.....who knew!! I thought they were just freeloaders?